Piketty’s data
- This topic has 319 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Furthermore, DJP, I'm fed up with the disingenuous questions, on the pretence that you're actually interested in discussing these issues. You stick to your Engelsian ideology, and I'll stick to my Marxian one.If you want to know more, re-read the dozens of post I've made to you especially, in my forlorn attempts to get you to think about science, and what physicists like Rovelli argue are fundamental problems with what the layperson calls 'science'.
It was a genuine question, since I think that discussion forums are a very bad place for getting ideas across (as the above replies would indicate) essays work better as points can be developed with more accuracy and detail and for the author it provides a chance to distill ones thoughts and really find out where and weak areas or contradictions lie…19th century positivism and logical positivism are dead dogs, I agree. In the early 21st century much of the stuff you have been talking about forms part of undergraduate philosophy courses and is generally accepted as true.Yes Engels got some stuff wrong, but to think that the history of the workers movement would be dramatically different if "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific" where worded differently is spurious at best.I think you do have some good points to raise, but for whatever reason, you are doing a very bad job of it. I hope that doesn't come across as patronising that is not my intention…Anyhow, I think Vin's questions about "proletarian philosophy of science" are leading in the right direction…
Given what you've said, DJP, I can only take it at face value, and apologise for my tone in the last post.But I need some time to reflect, about why I'm 'doing a very bad job of it'.
1. Asume good will.2. Apply the principle of charity.3. Avoid binary over-simplifications (all x's are y)4. Avoid appeals to authority.5. Use your own words as much as possible.6. Test your own arguments against the strongest opposing ones you can think of.7. If you feel wind up by a post turn the computer off.I know I've broken all of those 'rules' at some point
DJP wrote:1. Asume good will.2. Apply the principle of charity.3. Avoid binary over-simplifications (all x's are y)4. Avoid appeals to authority.5. Use your own words as much as possible.6. Test your own arguments against the strongest opposing ones you can think of.7. If you feel wind up by a post turn the computer off.I've tried all these, to no avail. I can't get anyone to discuss, on these threads, whether they think there is something to what Rovelli says.I can't get anyone to tell me what ideology they employ, in reading Piketty, or doing 'physics'.The default seems to be the pre-Einstein position that 'science has a method which produces the Truth', and is not ideological. But Rovelli claims that is not true, and all recent philosphers of science (Kuhn, Feyerabend, Lakatos) seem to agree with Rovelli.I suspect that the 'ruling class ideas' about science are the ones that are prevailing, though.
LBird wrote:I can't get anyone to tell me what ideology they employ, in reading Piketty, or doing 'physics'.The default seems to be the pre-Einstein position that 'science has a method which produces the Truth', and is not ideological. But Rovelli claims that is not true, and all recent philosphers of science (Kuhn, Feyerabend, Lakatos) seem to agree with Rovelli.By 'ideology' I'm assuming that you mean the 'web of beliefs' that a person uses to make sense of the world. I think that 'ideology' can refer to a section of this web but not the web as a whole. I think you're using the word 'ideology' too broadly and that's part of the problem.The trouble is no two people will share the exact same compound of beliefs, experiences or concepts. By just naming some 'ism' there's no guarantee that we can magically transfer our "webs of belief". For a start I might mean something different when using the word "ism" than when you use the word "ism".I generally go along with the Rovelli quote but would say that it was not that Newtonian physics is wrong, just that in order to represent reality it was shown necessary to employ another granular level of explanation. The laws of newton still explain the motion of large bodies in space.You seem to be using Einstein as a proponent of *cognitive* relativism, I think this is mistaken. The theory of relativity depends on the speed of light and the laws of physics *being the same* for both observers, if the speed of light or the laws of physics where relative to observers the theory would not work. Though if you want to again talk epistemology or philosophy of language (the meaning stuff) it will probably best to start another thread.
DJP wrote:The trouble is no two people will share the exact same compound of beliefs, experiences or concepts.To me, DJP, this is a statement of liberal ideology.Because I'm a Communist (as I never tire of being open about), I think that 'ideas' come from society, and that most 'people' share exactly the same ideas, and these ideas come from classes.So, if I'm to discuss 'beliefs', I don't start from 'people' (in effect, this means 'individuals'), who supposedly have their 'own beliefs', but from society, and the ideas that it implants into the members of that society.And, as we live in a class society, I would look for the broad similarities within 'class ideas', which oppose each other, ruling and exploited.Now, I'm open about my ideology.If you don't agree with my outline of 'social ideas', and prefer 'individual ideas', that's fine by me. But why not spell out your ideological bias towards 'no two people'?It's not just 'your opinion', but the basis of an ideological outlook, which I do not share.So, if we want to discuss 'science', we need to be open about our contrasting ideologies, from the start, so that all can follow our discussion, as clearly as possible.The points I would go on to make about 'science' would be anathema to 'individualists', because I see science as a social activity, not an individual one.It's best to be open about our ideologies. We all have them, but only Communists have no 'material' () reason to hide this.
LBird wrote:most 'people' share exactly the same ideasOh dear. If that where true I'm not sure why we would need this forum.I'm just getting the feeling you havn't considered what I said. You havn't replied to much of my points just repeated what you have said 1000 times before…Yes, no individual exists seperatly from their place in history and in society.And yes science and language are social activities. These are nothing but banalities.But at the same time it is not "individualist" to suggest that there is not going to be complete uniformity amongst members of a group.I fail to see what point you are trying to make other than we do not share the same ideas, which seems to contradict your starting point.Maybe take up my essay suggestion because I don't see this current discussion going anywhere.
DJP wrote:LBird wrote:most 'people' share exactly the same ideasOh dear. If that where true I'm not sure why we would need this forum.I'm just getting the feeling you havn't considered what I said. You havn't replied to much of my points just repeated what you have said 1000 times before…Yes, no individual exists seperatly from their place in history and in society.And yes science and language are social activities. These are nothing but banalities.But at the same time it is not "individualist" to suggest that there is not going to be complete uniformity amongst members of a group.I fail to see what point you are trying to make other than we do not share the same ideas, which seems to contradict your starting point.Maybe take up my essay suggestion because I don't see this current discussion going anywhere.
If most 'people' share exactly the same ideas, we certainly would not need forum moderators and DJP, if you're still a moderator, you should probably declare an interest here in "opposing" this idea, that is even if your opposition to an idea is possible as per LBird.
DJP wrote:LBird wrote:most 'people' share exactly the same ideasOh dear. If that where true I'm not sure why we would need this forum.I'm just getting the feeling you havn't considered what I said. You havn't replied to much of my points just repeated what you have said 1000 times before…Yes, no individual exists seperatly from their place in history and in society.And yes science and language are social activities. These are nothing but banalities.But at the same time it is not "individualist" to suggest that there is not going to be complete uniformity amongst members of a group.I fail to see what point you are trying to make other than we do not share the same ideas, which seems to contradict your starting point.Maybe take up my essay suggestion because I don't see this current discussion going anywhere.
All your doing here, DJP, is reiterating your ideological beliefs.If you think 'individuality' is the basis of society, fine, but then there seems no point in discussing 'science' with me, because I hold the contrasting ideological belief that 'society' is the origin of indivdual's ideas, and so will discuss 'science' from that perspective.We need this forum precisely because you, Vin, YMS, et al, all say the same thing. With complete uniformity!These are not your 'individual thoughts', but social beliefs about the nature of 'individuals', 'society', 'ideologies', 'science', etc., etc. I would say this, because of my ideological beliefs.Now, if you want to discuss from a liberal perspective, say so, and I can bid you good-night.I'm on a Communist site precisely because I want to discuss science with other Communists. I've clearly made the mistaken assumption that all comrades here were Communists/Marxists. If some aren't, that's fine. But I want to discuss with those who are Communists/Marxists, so perhaps only those who regard themselves as such will want to continue the discussion with me.My mistake.
LBird wrote:If you think 'individuality' is the basis of society, fineNo I don't think that. What I do think is that to further engage with your eccentric muddle headed fantasism is a waste of my time.
Reminder: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.
To get back on economix track.
Quote:"we can proceed to place Piketty's book in its proper perspective. It's a bible for supporters of capitalism, not a handbook for Communists."Apparently their bible and handbook according to the Independent is an out of print "Business Adventures" by John Brooks.Did it ever get reviewed when it was published in the 60s. Has anybody read it and want to challenge Gates and Buffet on its worth?http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/features/business-adventures-by-john-brookes-a-bible-for-billionaires-9619919.html
Just to get the thread fully on the Piketty line, i read this Right idealogues critique of the book, more and more of which are coming online, since i was taken by the title… Piketty is the Anti-Marxhttp://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/piketty-is-the-anti-marx/Which he also elaborates on herehttp://www.theamericanconservative.com/millman/piketty-and-executive-pay/
Quote:"…Piketty, appears to update Marx’s analysis for our own era and to put the question of the distribution of wealth back in the center of economic and political analysis. But Piketty’s doorstop book is very different from the one Marx wrote, almost its opposite both methodologically and in its implicit politics…. Although his book is titled to recall Marx’s, Marx told a story about how capitalism changed economic relations, tearing apart old hierarchies in a ruthless quest for efficiency. Piketty tells a story about how capitalism did not change economic relations. Heredity mattered a lot in Balzac’s Paris, but it surely mattered even more in Louis XIV’s—and Piketty argues that it matters more now than it did in 1950 and will matter in the future as much as it did in 1850. Piketty’s book could have been titled The Capitalist Road Back To Serfdom. Which is why Piketty’s politics also differ dramatically from Marx’s. Marx was an apocalyptic optimist. He saw the horror wrought by industrialization, but he also saw the extraordinary power industrialization unleashed, and he imagined a way that the power would ultimately make it possible—inevitable, actually—for the horror to be overthrown…"I'll leave all the detailed disagreement on anyalyses to those who have read the book to discuss if valid or not.Even though it is from an unashamed capitalist apologist and with an intention or contaext that we do not share, this author's concluding comment is appropriate.
Quote:He is to be commended as well for demanding a humbler empiricism from the community of economists. But if we are to proceed from analysis to action, we still need a more robust theory of what is actually causing the problem …DJP wrote:LBird wrote:If you think 'individuality' is the basis of society, fineNo I don't think that. What I do think is that to further engage with your eccentric muddle headed fantasism is a waste of my time.
Are you sure that you're a 'grown-up', DJP?To return to the world of adults: to avoid any more diversions on this thread, I'll start a new one, for Communists to discuss science.That doesn't include children who hurl abuse, like you, DJP. Do all 'individualists' throw tantrums when the big kids use big words that they don't understand, like 'society'?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.